Forums >Off the Beaten Path>On Wisconsin!
Why is it sideways?
The stuff that people get outraged about is hard to decipher. It's hard for me to be outraged that teachers and public bureaucrats and policemen are getting good pension and insurance benefits. Especially when those people have offered to cut their benefits.
Is the problem with the economy (in Wisconsin and beyond) the pension plans of public servants? This is hard for me to believe.
the problem with the economy
The sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side.
Options,Account, Forums
But one might make (I think) a plausible argument that the problem with future budgeting is at least partly the problem with rising health costs, which in turn are tied to generally older people. Which brings us to health insurance benefits, at least.
It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.
No geometry medal for you. And you only get half a ribbon.
Okay, yeah, the problem is a multitude of problems. But why start with revoking union bargaining rights? Serious question.
I have an idea! Why not pass a federal health system plan that works to lower costs nationally and address our broken health care system!
I'll take a shot at this. Cause if you buy that spiraling health costs are a major factor, then you need to be able to cut them, or at least not get trapped into ever-growing increases -- and perhaps the main hindrance there is the unions.
Because that's where the governor has some leverage, from what I can gather. Or at least thinks he does.
Because that's what the governor has some leverage on, from what I can gather.
Sounds pretty damn indirect if you ask me. And whether or not he has leverage seems to me TBD.
True.
A) Because the governor of Wisconsin probably can't do that.
B) Now, does the federal health plan system really work to reduce costs, or does it just work to increase coverage (and then, unfunded liability)?
Except holy smokes, the unions offered to cut pensions and benefits! So turns out that's not a good explanation.
And way to get my whole prepositional mess up before I fixed it. Someone else can get my metal.
A) Because the governor of Wisconsin probably can't do that. B) Now, does the federal health plan system really work to reduce costs, or does it just work to increase coverage (and then, unfunded liability)?
A) The gov of Wisconsin and his party actively resisted the passage of the health care bill.
B) Is trying to fix a broken system better than leaving a broken system alone? If you believe in human intelligence, then you choose to try to fix problems.
A) The gov of Wisconsin and his party actively resisted the passage of the health care bill. B) Is trying to fix a broken system better than leaving a broken system alone? If you believe in human intelligence, then you choose to try to fix problems.
Neither of these is very logical to me.
Making federal fixes is not the job assigned to the Wisconsin governor. Dragging in his party & place in that is, arguably, not particularly relevant to his actual job -- it smacks of trying to tar him with a brush for aguments sake.
B) I asked - and therefore hinting at an implication - that what they're doing is not fixing, but actually worsening the system (unfunded liability -- words that ought to strike fear into everyone's hearts). To claim that it is better "to try to fix the system" without addressing the question of whether you're making it worse -- now I would argue that approach is problematic. To assume "any fix is better than no fix" is to ignore the actual problem itself -- and to fall into the perennial trap of legislators, who are always attracted the concept that "doing something" is the important part, as it gets them publicity and votes, without regard to whether the something is actually beneficial.